Под сенью Святого Павла: деловой мир Лондона XIV — XVI вв. - Лариса Чернова

A complex of various types of activities: trade, lending operations, crown financing, production and entrepreneurship, investment into real estate in towns and counts of England, and participation in the political life and governance of London was a sign of belonging to a business community. Such a diversity of activities was typical of the majority of men of business, especially aldermen who made not only the richest and the most commercially active part of society but also formed the ruling elite of the city.

Formation of London's alderman institution took place together with the development of the city and establishment of its main social and political functions by the beginning of the 13th century. It was by that time that London had become a generally recognized leading economic center, an official capital of the kingdom and had acquired the status of the most privileged city of England.

According to the town law aldermen election criteria were the following. First of all, it was being a part of the community of freemen, rightful townspeople, who, besides other privileges, had the right to participate in elections of the town's officials and formation of the town's local authority. They were also obliged to be members of one of the Great Twelve Livery Companies of London — merchants of luxury goods, ready-made clothes, ironmongers, wine merchants, traders of salt, spice merchants, wool and cloth merchants, grocers, fishmongers, jewelers, and fur traders. It is important to note that aldermen were included in the limited but richest and the most influential part of the company — the top of the livery. In fact, the position of the alderman was in the hands of the richest merchants. Thirdly, for being elected an alderman there was a certain property qualification in 1000 pounds “in goods and loans” in the 14th — 15th centuries and in 1.500 pounds “in goods, loans and lands” in the 16th century. In 1413 another criterion was recorded: only a native Englishman could become an alderman of London.

The fact that these requirements were bolstered up in town documents shows that aldermen in London had a certain legal separation from other townsmen and their membership was limited only by high-ranking people with a property status.

All the power in the town — executive, judicial, administrative, and legislative — was in the hands of aldermen and officials, including the upper ones, chosen from them. Mayors who headed London's municipality were elected only from among aldermen. Sheriffs were also mainly aldermen. Recorders, chamberlains, town clerks and other civil servants were made up of aldermen as well.

The most important town positions were considered as royal too: the Mayor was not only the head of London's municipality but also a royal official. The same and even more can be said about sheriffs for whom their service to the king was a priority.

London's city power was concentrated in the municipality which has been embodied in the building of Guildhall since the 15th century. In the whole the structure of power in London of the 14th — 16th centuries can be seen as follows: the “Council of Aldermen”, about 23–26 people (according to the number of administrative districts) and a mayor; the “Council of the Chosen” which included the mayor, aldermen and about 150–200 councilors who were elected in administrative districts; the “Council of Citizens Assembly” consisting of a mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, and, approximately, 70 “guild masters” registered in freemen lists and wearing a livery of one of the Great Twelve Livery Companies.

The city administration was closely connected with the judicial power represented by the Mayor's Court, Aldermen's Court and the Sheriff's Court which tried property, trade, and various financial cases. There were also District Courts with aldermen at the head that dealt with the protection of administrative districts and provided their social and fire safety and sanitary state.

During the given period formation of city authorities and senior officials was taking place in the way of co-optation. Moreover, several of the most important posts (from 3 to 9 successively and from 3 to 4 simultaneously) could be engrossed for quite a long time though in the 15th — 16th centuries prestige of administrative and police posts was gradually decreasing while financial and business positions were becoming more attractive. It should be also noted that aldermen occupied their posts for life.

Power exercised by the representatives of the London aldermen group during the 14th — 16th centuries could be characterized as elitist-oligarchic.

An important factor of the unity and consolidation of London ruling elite, its stability and securing of seclusion was marriages among the representatives of aldermen families. In fact, the principle of having life posts which grew into life-hereditary gave some aldermen families the opportunity of constant participation in London power holding structures. It seems that we may speak about 20–30 affinitive families.

Business connections between ruling families in the spheres of trade, finance and credit operations, investment into real estate and its commercial usage can be clearly traced in the alderman environment. Family solidarity seems to be the most important instrument of political and economic dominance of the elite.

However, seclusion of the aldermen community of the 14th — 16th centuries was not absolute. It was constantly replenished by people from different social layers and communities. Among them there were London merchants and merchants from various towns and boroughs of England who possessed large financial resources and good reputation in business and, as a rule, younger sons of the gentry from various counties of England to provide for life being involved into trading which was, at least in the 14th century, a well-known activity.

A wide and regular inflow of new forces from counties and provincial English towns had a positive impact on qualitative characteristics of London alderman community. There was a considerable and more or less regular renewal of its members who strived for success and making a career and who, first of all, relied on themselves, their abilities and opportunities. All this strengthened economic might of big London merchants and interconnections between the classes, strengthening, therefore, the position of aldermen in the city community and authorities.

Marriage to those who belonged to different social groups and layers was one of the most important instruments of realization of a typical for London men of business tendency to the dialogue with a surrounding world. Matrimonial interests of business community covered representatives of the merchant class, both of the capital and provincial towns. It is obvious that such marriages promoted not only strengthening business cooperation among English merchants, but also were one of the few means of penetration of rich and enterprising merchants into the business world and London ruling class. Many businessmen families of London related to English aristocracy of different levels, both gentry and knights and even titled aristocracy. This shows a considerable interest of commercially active city dwellers in socially more prestigious community of the 14th — 16th centuries and their wish to penetrate into it with the help of marriages which corresponded to their social ambitions and desires. Some noblemen would not mind to relate to the richest merchants. Such matrimonial behavior of noblemen was caused by the closeness of economic, social and political positions of the big merchant class and gentry and the desire of some aristocrats to improve their financial position.

Commercial activity of London men of business was complicated and reflected a contradictory social and economic nature of the 14th — 16th town itself.

First of all, merchants carried on a large-scale trade in London, inside and outside England. It was trade, seen as worthy, honorable and pious work, that took the most important part of their minds and required from them manifestation of rationalism, common sense, business activity, professionalism and understanding that their aim was to get additional benefits. Wealth which became the measure of achieved success and social importance caused a complicated conflict with some elements of Christian consciousness. How to use this wealth and not to be cast into hell-fire, but to provide for the family and close people was the problem which aldermen tried to solve in their wills. Understanding of the risk that accompanied their profession and the desire to provide their safety incited aldermen to search for God's and saints' protection which is reflected in a widely spread practice of sacrifices recorded in their wills. In fact, it can be said that the merchant class worked out a new type of religiousness which combined the belief in God and fear of after death punishment with a commercial approach to the so called “good works” that brought success in the land of the living and a reward after death. Great opportunities for trade and having income were given by livery, merchant by nature, companies whose members were merchants-aldermen. Besides them in the 14th -16th centuries there were also family associations, companies of merchants-? of Calais and merchants-adventurers, and a number of new corporations that emerged and functioned on share principles in the 16th — the beginning of the 17th centuries (Moscow, Levant, East Indies and so on). It is important to note that they all united and attracted to cooperation not only London aldermen from various livery companies but other merchants from the capital and provinces and representatives of English noblemen and church as well. A considerable number of people from different social groups were involved into the sphere of trade and interacted successfully which led to the expansion of trade and increasing of its volume. As aldermen were among the biggest shareholders, they were those who received the main profit from it.

It was especially seen in the 16th century when a considerable expansion of the scale and trade spheres of London aldermen took place. There are solid grounds for speaking about the connection of some London business community representatives of that time with the process of formation of new, organized on early capitalist principles production. Men of business from the capital not only started to export the English industry products but also supplied the whole branches with imported raw material: cloth making, cotton manufacture, shipbuilding, mining industry and metal manufacture. Besides, some aldermen of the second half of the 16th century took part in organizing pirated businesses and colonial expeditions investing into them big money but at the same time making a huge profit.

Another important sphere of London merchants' economic activities was lending operations that connected them with representatives of different social groups. London men of business lent money to merchants from livery companies, craftsmen from the capital and provincial merchants, clergymen, noblemen and the crown. Such broad social communications not only reflect the degree of this social community financial might, which is, of course, very important, but they also show the level of development of economic ties among towns and regions of England and the nature and scale of social interaction among various classes and inside class groups.

Recognizing priority significance of commercial and financial activity for men of business in London of the 14th — 16th centuries, it is necessary to note that many of them were also owners of land and real estate in the town and various counties of England. During this time capital received from trade was actively invested into buying land and property by the richest London class of merchants. This was caused by different factors: by special significance of land property at that time, for reasons of social prestige, by the necessity of reducing economic risks and providing guaranteed income, food and raw material. With regard to the town we should speak mainly about commercial by its nature possession of houses. In particular, aldermen rented not so many parcels of land as premises that brought a considerable income to town: shops, hotels, dwelling houses, workshops, shipyards and so on. If land was rented, it was more often used for development. Transactions in land owning concluded by London merchants-aldermen covered a wide social range: representatives of various categories of citizens (merchants, petty traders, and craftsmen), noblemen, church and monasteries. Aldermen not only strengthened their position in the city economy but partly created rather dangerous competitors for themselves, especially in church and monasteries and inevitably came into the zone of conflict with them. In full it showed up in the second third of the 16th century when powerful London merchants joined the wide scale activities of the royal power on the sale of secularized Church lands and monasteries' property.

In the 16th century pastures, “fenced pastures”, and “farms” emerged in the structure of country real estate of men of business. Representatives of big merchant class tried to use lands to receive profit from the advanced in technical respect agriculture that was closely connected with the market and specialized on the delivery of wool for cloth making industry or on commodity production of grain, meat, cheese, milk and other products arranged on capitalist farms. Trying to receive new profits that could be, first of all, gained from sheep breeding, farmers-merchants joined fencing together with “new nobility”.

Thus, in the 16th century men of business turned to be connected with new processes that took place in the English society and were able to adjust to new conditions and use them in their own interests.

Along with this we should mention such a tendency as ennoblement of London men of business, first of all, aldermen. Erecting palaces and buying estates, they were inclined to stress their growing social significance which reflects their values. Aldermen wanted to show nobleness of their kin. They bought family watches and coats of arms the image of which they placed on shields, clothes, valuable goblets, dishes and bowls. Besides, London aldermen and their relatives did not want to lag behind noblemen in luxury of their clothes, decoration of their houses and some elements of their behavior (for example, their liking for hunting). The tendency to ennoblement was seen in receiving the title of a knight by merchants, in dubbing them knight, which led not only to raising their social status but to expanding the class of “new nobility” with the richest and the most influential city dwellers.

However, we should not overestimate the degree of London business community ennoblement. Not all the merchants and their descendants, who had received noble titles and established noble families, completely broke ties with the city economy. In such a dynamic society as London's, the borders between different classes were rather vague and the same families had the possibilities to move from one class to another not once. All the more so, that nobility in England was not a closed hereditary class with rights and privileges recorded by law and separated from other social groups. Access to it was not only open but obligatory for free men who had a certain income. The fact of being noble by birth was not so important as on the continent.